Wednesday, December 3, 2008

Allegations of Voter Fraud in Ohio Smoking Ban

COLUMBUS, Ohio, Dec. 2 /PRNewswire- USNewswire/ -- Ohio voters went totheir polling places to cast their votes in November, 2006 confidentthat their vote would count and confident that what they read whenthey voted would be enacted into law. Several ballot initiativesappeared on that day. Issue 2 was the Minimum Wage ballot initiative,described in 1039 words on the ballot. Issue 5, the Ohio smoking banballot initiative, was described in 202 words. To refresh thereaders' memories, we've included that actual ballot as it appearedat the polls.

Voters approved Issue 5 based on the ballot language. SmokeFree Ohiowants us to believe the people who voted "YES" to exemptions reallymeant "NO". Voters instead got this law:

-- NO exemptions for family owned and operated businesses-- NO exemptions for private clubs-- Exemptions for outdoor patios with restrictions-- Smoking a cigarette in a prohibited area is not a violation ofthe law

According to a public records request dated August 4, 2008, not oneindividual has been fined in the State of Ohio for smoking. In factaccording to Lance Himes, Assistant Council for the Ohio Departmentof Health, "merely smoking in one of these areas does not constitutea violation."

If the Secretary of State is responsible for ensuring all electionsare free, fair, open and honest, who is responsible for ensuring thatthe law voters approved is the law the voters ended up getting? TheLegislature is. Issue 5 was nothing more than a "bait and switch"tactic. The Ohio Attorney General pursues criminal chargesagainst "bait and switch" companies doing business in Ohio. "Why areballot initiatives not guarded even more closely? If a vote is notsacred, then what is? How is this not voter fraud?" asks DebiKistner, Opponents of Ohio Bans. "Nothing about Issue 5 was honest orfair."

Voters were told there would be exemptions for family ownedbusinesses, private clubs and outdoor patios. We know now that it wasan illusion, a shell game. The Director for the Ohio Department ofHealth, Dr. Alvin Jackson, claimed space was an issue and thatapparently is why "with no employees" and "not open to the public"qualifying statements were left off the ballot initiative. Eightwords would have brought the wording to 210 words, quite short ofIssue 2's 1039 words. If space was an issue, why print theseexemptions at all? If the exemptions weren't to exist, that couldhave saved an additional 12 words and a lot of confusion. Why werethe exemptions listed? To get YES votes.

SmokeFree Ohio told voters there was "no economic harm to businessesfrom smoke-free policies". Opponents of Ohio Bans proved from publicrecords requests that the first year of the ban liquor permit holderslost a potential of 67.44 million dollars in sales, which does notinclude lost beer sales, vending (pool tables, juke boxes), etc. Thatloss alone equates to over 4 million dollars in lost sales and usetaxes for the State of Ohio. Ohio's Gongwer Legislative News Servicedated August 15, 2008 reported the highest unemployment figures since1992 with Hospitality and Leisure in the #1 spot beating Trade,Utilities and Transportation combined. Tobacco control advocatesthink if they keep repeating "there is no economic harm from smokingbans" that it will make it so. It does not! The bottom line is peopleare now choosing to drink (and smoke) at home, as the same publicrecords request showed with the increase of over 1.3 million morebottles of liquor sold for home consumption in 2007 over what wassold in 2006.

Voters were told the Department of Health would enforce the ban.Reread the ballot language. Not only have they laid the enforcementresponsibilities on business owners, which was not on the ballot,they've have now declared that smoking is not a violation of the law.However, a business owner not telling a smoker to put the cigaretteout is a violation. This makes no sense. If a smoker is doing nothingwrong legally, then why is a business owner required to sayanything? "It's like legally requiring a bank manager to informrobbers while a robbery is in progress that robbing the bank isagainst the law and then coming after the manager if he doesn't whileabsolving the robbers of any crime," said Pam Parker, Opponents ofOhio Bans.

Senate Bill 346 has been introduced to correct the bait and switchtactics by SmokeFree Ohio. But time is running out. At the ratehospitality businesses are closing, there won't be many left to save.Most are barely hanging on. One bar owner called to say her 80 yearold father-in-law is about to lose his home that he borrowed againstto keep their 23 year bar business open. With DHL closing and Ohiorunning out of unemployment funding, can Ohio also afford to bailoutthose who lose their jobs from family owned businesses because ofapparent voter fraud? Where is the bailout for the business ownerswho have invested years of hard work and are now depleting theirsavings? "SB346 shouldn't be about politics," said Parker. "It'sabout fixing a bad law based on apparent fraudulent language. It'sabout saving Ohio jobs, family owned businesses and private clubs."

The only similarity between what voters read when they voted and thelaw we currently have are the words "to enact Chapter 3794 of theOhio Revised Code".